j'jusyu^ - &o ; &l. //^ryv-cML . 



/ 
WHEN 



Southampton anb Southold. 



PN 



Long Island, 



WERE SETTLED. 



BY 



GEO. R. HOWELL, 






ALBANY: 

WEED, PARSONS AND COMPANY, PRINTERS. 

1882. 




W HEN 



Southampton and Southold; 






Lojvtg Island. 



WERE SETTLED 



BY 



GEO. R HOWELL. 




ALBANY: 
WEED, PARSONS AND COMPANY, PRINTERS. 



WHEN 



SOUTHAMPTON AND SOUTHOLD, 



ON LONG ISLAND, 



WERE SETTLED 



The Rev. Dr. Epher Whi taker, in issuing liis late history of 
Sonthold, has made a praiseworthy contribution to our knowledge 
of Long Island. Among the natives of this gem of the sea who 
have found homes elsewhere throughout our broad land, this 
work of his finds readers as interested as any that still remain in 
the old birthplace. We, too, are interested in the chronicle of 
the struggles of these island Puritans to plant anew such homes 
in this country as should remind them of the ones they had left 
in England. And although the writer may not look among these 
worthy pioneers of Sonthold for his ancestors, still, as this town 
was almost cotemporaneous in its settlement with his native place, 
the adjoining town of Southampton, from no one has Dr. Whit- 
aker's book received a warmer welcome than from him. And 
this in spite of the omission of genealogies of the early settlers, 
which we hoped would be found there, and in spite also o£- the 
fact that the good Doctor still maintains his opinion of the pri- 
ority of the settlement of the town as compared with that of 
Southampton, formerly combated by the writer, and now to be 
assailed once more by the concurrent testimony of every historian 
who has treated of this subject, with one exception. This ex- 
ception is Silas Wood, whose history of Long Island placed the 



settlement of Southampton in December, 1640, because that was 
the date of the Indian deed of the town, and because he could 
not have seen the testimony of several witnesses whom I shall 
summon to decide this question. 

Our author has one singular method of reasoning at the outset. 
After throwing discredit upon Griffin's Journal — and we all know 
the genial old gentleman did make mistakes — he quotes Griffin's 
list of thirteen settlers with the statement of this author that 
they constituted a portion of the Rev. Mr. Youngs' church in 
England, and emigrated with him in the summer of 1640, and 
came from New Haven to Southold in the September following. 
Then he goes on to say that twelve of these men did not come to 
America in 1610 ; that they had been in this country, in various 
places, for several years preceding. So tar we have no criticism 
to offer; but when Dr. Whitaker draws the large inference from 
these facts that no portion of Mr. Youngs' English parish 
could have come over with him to New Haven, and gone thence 
to Southold, with recruits picked up in various places, he is guilty 
cf a very absurd non sequitur. In the long list of 138 men form- 
ing Mr. Youngs' parish, given on pages 45-4S of Dr. Whitaker's 
history, might surely be found ten men who with Mr. Youngs 
could have formed a church organization at New Haven, after 
crossing the ocean together. Because certain twelve men did not 
make up a company of Mr. Youngs' parishioners in England and 
America, it does not follow that no other twelve men held this 
relation to him. Still, it is not essential to the time of the settle- 
ment that a portion of his English parish also formed a part of 
his parish at Southold. The point is, when did the company go 
there to settle from New Haven % They could not have gone 
there without Youngs, because he was the leader in the enterprise, 
and he came to America in the summer of 1640. 

Dr. Whitaker claims, in his history of Southold, that the orig- 
inal settlers came there before the settlers of Southampton occu- 
pied the land now known under that name. This we deny. We 
claim that Southampton was settled, at the latest, in the early 
part of June, 1640, and that Southold was settled in October of 
the same year. Instead of arguing the case again, it is the pur- 
pose of the writer to quote all the authorities that are accepted 



as standard among historical men, and that throw an}' light upon 
this question, and then let the case rest with the public for a 
verdict. 

I may be permitted to cite a fact which I do not find in the 
history of Southold in reference to the ecclesiastical connection 
of Mr. Youngs before his emigration. Neal, in his history of 
New England, published in London in 1720, gives a " list of the 
names of such Puritan ministers, who were in orders in the 
Church of England, but being disturbed by the ecclesiastical 
courts, for the cause of nonconformity, transported themselves to 
New England, for the free exercise of their ministry before the 
year 1641 ." In this list occurs the name of the Rev. Mr. Youngs, 
of Southold. (Vol. 1, p. 195.) 

Dr. Whitaker, in his history of Southold (p. 36), says: 
"Thompson says that the Rev. John Youngs 'came to New 
Haven in 1638,' and this statement is likely to hold good.' 1 

When a second edition of a work has been published which 
professes to revise and correct the first, no historian thinks of 
quoting the first edition as the writer's best knowledge and 
testimony when the statement in question has been corrected in 
the second. But this is just what Dr. Whitaker has done, and 
in full knowledge that Thompson says in his second edition, vol. 
1, p. 395, as follows : " Rev. John Youngs,, one of the original 
settlers of the town, was the first minister. He had been a 
preacher in Hingham, England, came to New Haven with some 
of his church in 1610, and in October following removed to this 
place, where he continued till his decease in 1672, aged seventy- 
four." 

Lambert's History of New Haven is a book of original research, 
not a compilation from other printed books, and is considered as 
good authority. He says on p. 180 : " Most of the first planters 
(of Southold) were from Hingham, in Norfolk, Eng., and came 
to New Haven in the summer of 1610." He also says that 
"Mr. Youngs reorganized his church at New Haven on the 
21st of October, 1640, and with them and such others as chose to 
accompany him in the latter part of the month passed over to the 
island and commenced the settlement of the plantation." 

G. H. Hollister's History of Connecticut, vol. 1, p. 113, says: 



6 

" This plantation (Sonthold) was commenced under the direction 
of the Rev. John Youngs, of Hingham, in Norfolk, who arrived 
in New Haven that summer (1640) with his parishioners, and 
after reorganizing his church after the plan of that colony, soon 
set sail for Long Island and commenced a settlement. 

Palfrey's well-known and standard history of New England 
also maintains that the settlers of Sonthold came from Norwalk 
county, Eng., and settled here in October, 1640. 

Now let us see what Silas Wood says, whose testimony is 
vaunted when it suits the doctor's opinions. He says, third edition, 
p. 34 : "The Rev. John Youngs was the first minister of South- 
old. He had been a minister at Hingham, in Norfolk, England, 
before he emigrated to this country. He came to New Haven 
with a part of his church, and with them and such as chose to 
accompany them, in October, passed over to Long Island, and 
commenced a settlement on a tract of land which had been pur- 
chased of the natives under the authority of New Haven." 

The painstaking Farmer finds no better authority than Wood 
on this point, and quotes the above in his Genealogical Register, 
p. 333. 

From Trumbull's History of Connecticut, first edition, 1797, 
vol. 1, p. 117 (the second edition of 1818 does not vary a single 
word from the following) : u It also appears that New Haven, or 
their confederates, purchased and settled Yennycock, Southold, 
on Long Island. Mr. John Youngs, who had been a minister at 
Hingham, in England, came over with a considerable part of his 
church, and here fixed his residence. Fie gathered his church 
anew, on the 21st of October (1640), and the planters united 
themselves with New Haven." 

Neal's History of New England. Neal speaks of the settle- 
ment of Southampton in 1640, but makes no direct mention of 
that of Southold. (Vol. 1, p. 189.) 

In his account of the progress of colonizing of the Massachu- 
setts Bay Puritans, he makes this statement (vol. 1, p. 152): 
" They (the Massachusetts settlers) seated themselves in the 
bay, and spread along the coast, where they built first the town 
of New Haven, which gives name to the colony; and then the 
towns of Guilford, Milford, Stamford and Branford. After 



some time they crossed the bay and made several settlements in 
Long Island, erecting churches in all places where they came, 
after the independent form." Now, the settlers of New Haven, 
on April 8, 1638 ((). S.), spent their first Sunday in their new 
settlement, Milford was settled in February, 1639 ; Griiil- 
ford in November or December, 1639; Stamford in July, 
1640, and Branford was purchased in 1638 or 1639, and 
settled in 1611 ; and all these four towns were settled from, and 
under, the jurisdiction of the New Haven colony. So that the 
settlement of Southold, according to Neal, was subsequent to the 
latest of these, which was that of Stamford, in July, 1610. This 
same statement would put Southampton in the same rank if there 
were not so much overwhelming testimony to the contrary, fixing 
the time of its settlement to be June, 1640. But if, as seems 
likely, the author has in mind the colonizing efforts of the New 
Haven colony, then Southampton need not be included at all in 
the general statement. Huntington was settled largely by Stam- 
ford men. 

Now as to the time of Mr. Youngs' arrival in America. Sam- 
uel G. Drake, in his Founders of New England, p. 49, has the 
following record, taken by him from the original entries in Lon- 
don : ["May the 11th, 1637.] The examination of John Yonge 
of St. Margretts, Snff. minister, aged thirty-five yeares and Joan 
his wife aged thirty-four years with six children, John, Tho : 
Anno, Rachell, Marey, and Josueph ar desirous to passe for 
Salam in New England to inhabitt." {Against the above entry 
in the place of the date is written :) " This man was forbyden 
passage by the Commissioners and went not from Yarmouth." 
This entry follows six other entries of May 11, 1637, and is fol- 
lowed by two entries of examination on May 12, 1637. 

James Savage's testimony. In the Massachusetts Historical 
Society's Collections, 4th series, vol. 1, p. 101, we find the same 
entry word for word, and this copy was made for Mr. Savage by 
an English gentleman. Mr. Savage adds in a foot-note that this 
Rev. John Yonge was the minister who came over " three years 
later" and settled at Southold. Two independent copyists thus 
say he was refused a passage in 1637. 

So far we have, treated the settlement of Southold as all other 



writers have done — assuming that it was settled just when Mr. 
Youngs and his company went there from New Haven and occu- 
pied, after the purchase by Gov. Eaton. But Dr. Whitaker has 
two strings to his bow. If we [trove the settlement to have been 
in October, then lie responds, " but there was a Matthew Sunder- 
land here in 1639, and a Richard Jackson on the 15th of August, 
1610, obtained a deed of Farrett for his land in Southold, and 
these antedate the Southampton settlement." We will first sup 
pose this statement to lie valid, and answer even then, if the 
coming of one man makes a settlement of a town, then must 
Southold yield priority to East Hampton, inasmuch as Lyon 
Gardiner purchased Gardiner's Island and occupied it in the early 
spring- of 1640. The date of the purchase deed is March 10, 
1639 (O. S.), which means 1610. But every writer dates the 
settlement of East Hampton from 161S, when the site of the 
present town was purchased of the Indians and occupied by a 
company of emigrants from Southampton, increased by accessions 
from Southold, and from the New Haven, Connecticut, and 
Massachusetts Bay colonies. Now as to Richard Jackson, Dr. 
Whitaker says he obtained a deed of Farrett, August 15, 1610, 
for land in Southold. Well, Southampton obtained its deed from 
Farrett on June 12, 1610. So Mr. Jackson is disposed of. And 
now for Sunderland. Our author says he took a lease of land on 
the 18th of June, 1639, of the agent of Lord Stirling, the same 
Farrett before mentioned, lie adds that on the 4th of Septem- 
ber, 1639, he took a receipt for rent thereon. Of the last date 
and its transaction (if it was not rent paid in advance) I will say 
if there is not something crooked, something false or erroneous,* 



*Since writing the above, I have, through a friend, consulted the Southold 
records, and find that the lease to Sunderland of June IX, 1639, is for an island 
in the town of Oyster Bay, for which he was to pay £20 per year. The other 
lease of the same date was of two little necks of land, the one on the east side 
of Oyster Bay harbor, the other on west side of said harbor, at ten shillings 
per year. There is little reason to doubt that this date of June is, L639, was 
really June IS, 1640, as would appear from the citation from the London doc- 
uments of the Colonial History of New York (vol. :'>, pp. 21, '22), given in the 
text. To this statement I append a copy of a paper in the office of the Secre. 
tary of State in General Entries, vol. 1, p. 63. And the reader will notice that 
this document also speaks of the sale of land at Cow Bay, to Howe and the 
Southampton settlers, as having been in the year 1639. When I discovered 



9 

I will surrender the whole question. Of the first, it is simply 
unpardonable for any man as well informed as Dr. Whitaker to 
go on citing the dates of the London documents, which all the 
world knows are one year in error concerning the Long Island 
history (see Brodhead's History of N. Y., vol. 1, p. 760). To 
show his want of candor, or rather to show what is true history, 
I cite two authorities on this point: 

this confirmation of what I have maintained for years, and saw there was abso- 
lutely no foundation for believing any European to be a resident at Yenuicott 
when the Lynn pilgrims landed at North Sea in June, 1040, to plant a colony 
on Long Island, called from the first, Southampton, I felt like keeping silence 
— but the publication of this history of Southold, advancing- such preposterous 
claims that would appear good to the world at large, determined me to put 
forth the true narration of the episode of the the early history of the island. 

[From General Entries, Vol. 1, p. 63.] 

Whereas a warrant was issued forth under my hand bearing date the 20th 
of October last [1664], for John Conckling to make his per sod all appearance 

before me on a certaine day, to show his title and claim- to a parcell of lands 
on Long Island, indifference betweene the said John Conckling and Govert Look- 
erinans of this towne, and both ptyea this day having produced severall deeds 
and writings to prove their titles to the lands in question (that is to say), John 
Conckling on his pte, brought a copie of a letter of attorney bearing date 
Aprill 20th, 1(»:{7, made by William Earle, of Sterling, to James fforrett, to be 
his agent for the letting, setting, or selling of any pte of Long Island for the 
use of the said Earle, &c. In pursuance whereof, the said James fforrett sold 
upon the 18th of June, 1630, unto Mathew Sunderland, his heirs and assigns 
for ever, for the rent of ten shillings p. aim. the two necks of land which 
make Oyster Bay, the one of the east, the other of the west side thereof, the 
said Mathew Sunderland paying three yeares rent to James fforrett, as his by 
acquittances doth appeare, dyes, and his widow layes claimeto it as a chattel!, 
(which I am informed is the custome of the country to esteeme of wilderness 
land as such), and leaves it to several children by another husband. There 
were also two depositions, the one from William Cooling to prove ye sale of 
the said two necks of land by the said James fforrett to Mathew Sunderland, 
entered in the records at South-hold, Anno, 1662, the 20th of Aprill. The other by 
Thomas Terry, to prove the sachems avowing in 1639, that they sold Matine- 
cock* to James fforrett, and Capt. Howe cum sociis. Covert Lookermans on 
his part, produced several deedes to prove bis purchase, hut none before the 
yeare 1650 and his land briefe in 1650, wch, being so many yeares after the for- 
mer grants, I have thought fitt to order and appoint, and by these pants do 
order and appoint that John Conckling being now in possession in behalfe of 
the orphan* at present bee is to continue, yet in regard the said Govert Look- 
ermans hath made appeare his real purchase of the premises, and behaving had 
possession and reed rent for the said lands for live yeares last past, the said 
Govert Lookermans shall have liberty i when the generall court shall be 
settled on the said island), to make his claime and title to appeare before them 
at their first sitting, whereof both ptes shall have two monethes advertize- 
ment and the difference is no further concluded by this order, but from the 
said court is to receive a definitive sentence without further appeale. 

Given under my hand at ffort James, in New York, on the Island of Man- 
hatans, this 22d day of November, 1664. RICHARD NICOLLS. 

*Matinnecock was a broad neck of land between Cow lJay and Oyster Bay. 



10 

1. From Chalmers' Political Annals, p. 571 : " In June, 1639, 
Forrest, the agent of Earl Stirling, transferred a considerable 
part of the eastern extremity of Long Island to Howell and his 
associates, with such powers of government as had been commu- 
nicated to that nobleman by the Plymouth Company."' In sup- 
port of this statement (perhaps the very words) Chalmers cites the 
New York papers, Plantation Office, Whitehall, Lond., vol. 1, p. 1. 

2. From the Colonial History of New York, vol. 3, pp. 21, 22 : 
" A deed of conveyance of land on Long Island covering the 
town of Southampton, to Edward Howell & Co., is here recorded 
of date June 12, 1039, and signed by James Farrett, (the For- 
rest of the former extract) as the agent of the Earl of Stirling." 
This instrument says further: " They (the settlers) being drove 
off by the Dutch from the place where they were planted by me 
to their great damage," etc., referring to fact that eight men 
under the charter or deed of Farrett first attempted a settlement 
at Cow Bay in what is now Huntington, and were compelled to 
abandon their attempt by the Dutch, and then proceeded to the 
east end of Long Island. 

Now Dr. Whitaker says that Sunderland's lease was dated the 
18th of June, 1639, six days subsequent to the sale of land to the 
settlers of Southampton. Furthermore on the same page (p. 22) 
as above is recorded a copy of Stirling's continuation of the sale 
of the land to Howell and his associates, dated the 20th of August, 
1639. This confirmation embraces also the sale of land to John, 
Thomas and Edward Farrington, and also of land to Matthew 
Sunderland. It does not tell where the land of Sunderland was 
located, but it fixes the date of the year of this sale to be the 
same as that of Southampton. If Sunderland purchased his 
land in L639, then Southampton was settled in 1639. These 
London documents, as I have said, are in error of one year. 
Southampton was settled in 16-10 and Sunderland's first purchase 
or lease was also in 1640, and if his purchase amounts to a settle- 
ment of Southold, and if the dates of the settlement of the two 
towns are to be fixed by the dates of the instrument of sale by 
Farrett to Howell & Co., and of lease or sale to Sunderland, 
then the settlement of Southampton occurred on June 12, 1640, 
and that of Southold on the 18th of June, 1640. But the world 



11 

will still hold that Southold was settled only when the Rev. John 
Youngs and his company went to Yennicot in the last of Oc- 
tober, 1640, and actually occupied the land for the first time. 

This document speaks of the Southampton people being driven 
off by the Dutch from Cow Bay in the spring of 1039. The 
Dutch documents describe the same event as occurring in May, 
1040, and furthermore say that the English taken prisoners to 
New Amsterdam were, after an examination, dismissed on Satur- 
day, May 19. Now, May 19, 1040, by the Dutch reckoning, 
they having some time before adopted the new style or Grego- 
rian calendar, would fall on a Saturday ; but May 19, 1039, fell 
on a Thursday ; May 19, 1039, according to the English or old 
style, fell on Sunday. This incidental mention of the day of the 
week by the Dutch records fixes the date of the attempt at a set- 
tlement at Cow Bay and the expulsion to have been in the year 
1040. The same deed of the London documents, therefore, 
which cites the purchases of Sunderland and of the Southampton 
settlers, mentioning the very expulsion from Cow Bay, and cites 
these as both occurring in 1039, is in error of one year. And 
Dr. Whitaker knows of this discrepancy, and yet keeps on dating 
Sunderland's purchase in 1039, but generously allows the correc- 
tion of the date to be applied to Southampton. The English rec- 
ords in the office of the Secretary of State at Albany also correct 
the dates of the London documents. In the MS. book marked 
" Court of Assizes," vol. 2, p. 439, is recorded the first deed to 
the Southampton settlers, of date April IT, 1040, under which 
they were to take up eight miles square of land, where they 
should select, on Long Island. This record gives the date 1040, 
and not 1039, thus being in harmony with the Dutch records. 

It is very disagreeable to have to say what I have said, bnt, 
with all the cloud of witnesses with me, I know I am right and 
he is wrong. 

Now let us determine from all the authorities that mention the 
subject the time of the settlement of Southampton. 

Thompson's History of Long Island, second edition, vol. 1, p. 
320 : " After the settlement was broken up there (at Cow Bay), 
as related by Winthrop. Howe and his companions came here (to 
Southampton) and bargained with the natives for the land, and 



12 

the better to make sure of their purchase immediately advanced 
a part of the price. The payment of the balance was not ar- 
ranged till December 13, 1640, when a conveyance was obtained, 
and the settlement progressed." This deed of December 13, 
1640, by the way, mentions the fact that a part of the considera- 
tion for the land had already been paid to the Indians. 

Felt, in his Ecclesiastical History of New England, vol. 1, p. 
417, says: 

"1640, June. Some members of the Lynn Church went to 
Long Island and purchased a plantation at its western end from 
the agent of Lord Stirling. But the Dutch, who claimed it, dis- 
placing 1 them, they repaired to the eastern part of the island and 
took steps to form a church. This place was subsequently called 
South Hampton. Abraham Pierson received a call to become 
their minister. He was from Yorkshire; had his A. B. at Trin- 
ity College, Cambridge, 1632 ; came to Boston, 1639 ; joined the 
church there September 5, 1640, and had leave the next October 
11 from them to join in gathering a church at Long Island. But 
a small part of the company there, being at Lynn, he unites with 
them, in November, as a church, and then proceeds to their set- 
tlement on the island." 

Abiel Holmes, in his American Annals (vol. 1, p. 314), after 
giving the common account of the attempt of the Ljmn men to 
settle on the west end of Long Island, finishes the narrative as 
follows : 

"Provoked by this indignity (the fool's face set up in place of 
the arms of the Prince of Orange), the Dutch sent soldiers, who 
brought off the Englishmen and imprisoned them ; but after a few 
days, having taken an oath of them, they set them at liberty. 
The adventurers now removed to the east end of the island, 
where, to the number of forty families, they settled the town of 
Southampton." 

Hubbard's History of New England (chap. 33) adds no light 
on the exact time of the settlement, but tells the story substan- 
tially as the other New England historians, and puts the settle- 
ment in 1640, but gives no clue to the month or season of the 
year in which this occurred, except to mention the fact that after 
the expulsion from Cow Bay they went at once to the east end 
of Long Island and settled. 



•*•«! 



13 

In Neal's History of New England (vol. 1, p. 189) the same 
story is told of the attempts to settle at Cow Bay, the expulsion 
of the settlers, and their immediate removal to the east end of 
Long Island. No date is given more definite than "about this 
time," with 1610 in the margin to indicate the year in which the 
events occurred. 

Cotton Mather, in his Magnalia, in giving an account of Abra- 
ham Pierson, gives the same outlines as Hubbard, Neal and 
Holmes, and like them speaks of the settlement of Southampton 
following immediately the expulsion from Cow Bay. 

Ogilby says, in his History of America, p. 161 : " About 
the ye&v 1617 (1637) a new supply coming over into these parts, 
and not "finding in the Massachusetts Government any commodi- 
ous place to settle in, they after much search, took up a place 
somewhat more southerly They erected a new govern- 
ment which from their first fronteer town, being the seventeenth 

[settled by the English Puritans] was called Newhaven " 

" About the year 1640, by a fresh supply of people that settled 
in Long Island, was there erected the twenty-third town, called 
Southampton ; by the Indians, Agawom." 

From Edward Johnson's Wonder-working Providence. (In 
Massachusetts Historical Society's Collections, 2d series, vol. 7, 
p. 22) : 

"Chapter XVII of the planting of Long Island." Such is 
the heading of the chapter fgiving an account of the settlement 
of Southampton. This language would be inapplicable to South- 
ampton unless it was the first pioneer settlement on the island. 
If Southold had been planted, then the heading would have been 
" Of the planting of the second town, or church, on Long Island." 

Lechford's Plaine dealing, or Ne\ves from New England. In 
the reprint of 1867, p. 101, is a brief mention of the planting of 
Long Island. He says : "Long Island is begun to be planted 
and some two ministers are gone thither or to goe, as one mas- 
ter Pierson, and master Knowles, that was at Dover, alias 
Northam. A church was gathered for that island at Lynne, etc." 
Lechford says nothing of the Southold settlement. 

From Winthrop's Journal or History of New England, 1st ed., 
1790, p. 201 ; or edition of Savage, 1853. Vol. 2, p. 5. 



14 

"1640. Mo[nth] 4. Divers of the inhabitants of Linne 
finding themselves straitened looked out for a new plantation, 
and going to Long Island, they agreed with the Lord Stirling's 
agent there, one Mr. Forrett for a parcell of the isle near the 
west end, and agreed with the Indians for their right. The 
Dutch hearing of this and making claim to that part of the island 
by a former purchase of the Indians, sent men to take possession 
of the place, and set up the arms of the Prince of Orange upon 
a tree. The Linne men sent ten or twelve men with provisions, 
&c, who began to build and took down the Prince's arms, and 
in place thereof an Indian had drawn an unhandsome face. The 
Dutch took this in high displeasure, and sent soldiers and fetched 
away their men and imprisoned them in a few days, and then 
took an oath of them and so discharged them. [This discharge 
was o. s. May 9, 1640, or n. s. May 19.] Upon this the Linne 
men finding themselves too weak and having no encouragement 
to expect aid from the English, desisted that place, and took 
another at the east end of the same island, and being now about 
40 families, they proceeded in their plantation, and called one 
Mr. Pierson a godly learned man, and a member of the church 
of Boston to go with them." 

The testimony of all these historians is thus unanimous in sup- 
port of the settlement of Southampton in the first half of June, 
1640, and of the settlement of Southold in the last half of Octo- 
ber of the same year. Now let Dr. Whitaker persist, if he will, 
in the claim to the priority of the settlement of Southold. The 
testimony is before the world, and my task is done. 

Albany, Jan. 10, 1882. GEO. R. HOWELL. 



